In 2017, 4-time WDC Sebastian Vettel is called on the carpet for bumping into Lewis Hamilton during a low speed, safety car period at Baku. The incident is described as a “red mist” moment, when SV’s emotions got the better of him.

Vettel was roundly criticized by the press. He was roundly lampooned for his initial denial of responsibility for his actions. He was assessed points on his Super License, and was made to apologize to the FIA, and to the public… We can’t have this childish behavior influencing up and coming drivers…

In contrast, rewind 27 years to Suzuka, 1990…

Ayrton Senna, then a one-time WDC, runs into Alain Prost before the first corner, merely seconds after the GP starts. The accident occurs at 270kph, without any effort to brake and make the corner. Senna had warned of the imminent crash before the race, making his intentions clearly plain, ""No matter what happens, I will not yield the corner and if Prost takes his normal racing line, it would result in an accident." It's one thing to have an accident on purpose. It is quite another to announce it in advance.

The incident settles the driver’s championship for 1990. Senna wins. No mention of “red mist” driving. No license points, no admonition by FIA, no public apologies required.

In 2017, Vettel is chastised for his emotional driving. Since 1994, Senna has been treated like an angelic hero. Perhaps 2017 is ruled too much by political correctness. Or is it that a dead man’s “Legend” grants him a free pass from criticism, both then and now?

I am not a Vettel fan, nor am I a Prost or Senna fan. I watched Senna’s career live, from start to finish. He was a brilliant driver, especially in the inferior Toleman-Hart. His performance in the wet at Monaco (1984) foretold a greatness to come. He was the qualification pole record holder til this year, and his eventual race record speaks for itself.

However, Senna was also reckless. There, I said it (sacrilege to some I’m sure). He often boasted of driving himself and his car at 110%. But in doing so, he often overdrove both, placing himself and his fellow competitors at extreme risk, at a time when the cars were far less safe than they are today.

Vettel’s single “Red Mist” moment can easily be excused in comparison with Senna’s frequent “Red Mist” moments. His driving soured relationships with the majority of the field (and virtually every one of his teammates). Red Mist quarrels, accidents, and fistfights included E.De Angelis, N.Piquet, D.Warwick, M.Alboreto, G.Berger, N.Lauda, N.Mansell, R.Patrese, M.Schumacher, E.Irvine…not just A.Prost.

In 1990, Jackie Stewart interviewed Senna about the number of controversial collisions in which Senna had been involved over the previous years, questioning why Senna “had made more contact with other cars and drivers in the last four years than all the champions before him?”

Senna’s dismissive answer that he was under “pressure” which any 3-time WDC (Stewart) should not question, only confirmed Senna’s attitude. Imagine if that arrogance would pass for an explanation appropriate for young drivers to hear in 2017?

In sum, Senna competed in 161 GPs. He won 41 times, and finished on the podium 80 times (50%). But don’t forget… He either retired or was DSQ’d 53 times (33%) while driving the very best (most reliable) cars available 9 out of his ten years. This left him with just half as many mid-pack finishes (28, or 17%) as DNFs, demonstrating a lopsided, “all or nothing” pattern…A good representation of a “Checkers or Wreckers” driving record.

I have no quarrel with people praising the “Legend” today, as long as it is also tempered with the recognition that it was often earned at substantial peril. He was an excellent driver, but he was no saint. And the lessons offered by his many emotional (Red Mist) flaws should not be ignored or forgotten.

Just ask yourself…How would this behavior be tolerated in 2017?

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

I'm pretty sure Seb's had more than one 'Red Mist' moment himself, as have countless other drivers.

Baku was treated slightly different I think as it's rarer to see someone using their car to make a point and because it came between the title rivals it obviously got more scrutiny than had it been Grosjean and Wehrlein for example.

Senna got plenty of scrutiny placed on him as well and would do again if he was around now I'm sure. Hard to think of a top tier championship level driver that didn't cause some controversy along the way to be honest.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Against popular high opinion on Senna, what he did, slamming in the opponent car full speed should have seen him disqualified for that year and at least the following one, if not completely banned from the sport. Just look at 1997, just 8 years later, how properly Schumacher was treated. Bump, there goes your season to DQ. What Schumacher did was nearly the very bit same like what Senna did, with the big difference in speed, which makes Senna's offense much darker. Mind you, there were some fatal accident as a result of similar, unintentional crashes on that first Suzuka corner. Now to Vettel, he perhaps should get at most DQ from that race, but taking in view the low speed, the punishment seemed about right. You can not use your car as a weapon against your opponent, although indeed, no harm was done and, there was no intention to put the opponent out of the race. And, Vettel kind of had a "legal" reason to be upset, as Hamilton was not accelerating there where it was natural to do so, making Vettel bump ini him and destrozing his wing. Perez nearly crashed in them, too. So, it is indeed incomparable with the Senna and Schumacher cases. But for the sake of media making headlines it was exaggerated to some degree.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Mikey,Fair enough, I can and do certainly respect your opinion on this.

Things moved on and thank goodness they did. Hopefully neither Senna or Prost would be able to cheat their way to a WDC in 2017.

....or Schumacher.

Regarding Vettel we seem to missing the fact that it was under SC conditions as in the drivers were not supposed to be racing.

Harking back to the past is pointless, I wonder how Piquet's karate kick would be dealt with nowadays?

Times move on and such things change and become more regulated in regards to safety, as in the awful crash protection hoops, in football tackles that were the norm in the past would now get you a straight red card.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

Against popular high opinion on Senna, what he did, slamming in the opponent car full speed should have seen him disqualified for that year and at least the following one, if not completely banned from the sport. Just look at 1997, just 8 years later, how properly Schumacher was treated. Bump, there goes your season to DQ. What Schumacher did was nearly the very bit same like what Senna did, with the big difference in speed, which makes Senna's offense much darker. Mind you, there were some fatal accident as a result of similar, unintentional crashes on that first Suzuka corner. Now to Vettel, he perhaps should get at most DQ from that race, but taking in view the low speed, the punishment seemed about right. You can not use your car as a weapon against your opponent, although indeed, no harm was done and, there was no intention to put the opponent out of the race. And, Vettel kind of had a "legal" reason to be upset, as Hamilton was not accelerating there where it was natural to do so, making Vettel bump ini him and destrozing his wing. Perez nearly crashed in them, too. So, it is indeed incomparable with the Senna and Schumacher cases. But for the sake of media making headlines it was exaggerated to some degree.

Perez was nowhere near crashing into them because unlike Vettel he left a sensible gap and was not trying to get a jump on the driver in front.

Nothing was done to Schumacher in 1994 when he crashed Hill out of the race and when did the actual speed determine the level of the punishment, a gentle crash at Suzuka 1989 to decide the title is perfectly alright because it was perfectly safe, I guess we are not talking about sporting ethics as such?

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

Think it is ridiculous all you want, poker. I didn't say that dying on the track elevates a driver to greatness.... try reading it more closely.

Against popular high opinion on Senna, what he did, slamming in the opponent car full speed should have seen him disqualified for that year and at least the following one, if not completely banned from the sport. Just look at 1997, just 8 years later, how properly Schumacher was treated. Bump, there goes your season to DQ. What Schumacher did was nearly the very bit same like what Senna did, with the big difference in speed, which makes Senna's offense much darker. Mind you, there were some fatal accident as a result of similar, unintentional crashes on that first Suzuka corner. Now to Vettel, he perhaps should get at most DQ from that race, but taking in view the low speed, the punishment seemed about right. You can not use your car as a weapon against your opponent, although indeed, no harm was done and, there was no intention to put the opponent out of the race. And, Vettel kind of had a "legal" reason to be upset, as Hamilton was not accelerating there where it was natural to do so, making Vettel bump ini him and destrozing his wing. Perez nearly crashed in them, too. So, it is indeed incomparable with the Senna and Schumacher cases. But for the sake of media making headlines it was exaggerated to some degree.

Perez was nowhere near crashing into them because unlike Vettel he left a sensible gap and was not trying to get a jump on the driver in front.

Nothing was done to Schumacher in 1994 when he crashed Hill out of the race and when did the actual speed determine the level of the punishment, a gentle crash at Suzuka 1989 to decide the title is perfectly alright because it was perfectly safe, I guess we are not talking about sporting ethics as such?

Schumacher 1994 is nowhere near as clear-cut intentional as you prefer to believe, so the self-admitted intentional Senna action on Prost is not comparable. I'd suggest the difference in speed is proportional to the physical risk to the drivers, but then you knew that didn't you.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

Let's be fair Dale sr was a living legend in nascar way before his death in 2001. He probably cemented that legacy when he won the Daytona 500 in 1999 when he came from 18th to win the thing in the last 4 laps of the race.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

Let's be fair Dale sr was a living legend in nascar way before his death in 2001. He probably cemented that legacy when he won the Daytona 500 in 1999 when he came from 18th to win the thing in the last 4 laps of the race.

Earnhardt was a legend... as was Senna. Today, many, perhaps even most, refer to him as NASCAR's greatest driver, yet until Dale died Richard Petty had that distinction. Yeah, Dale won a Daytona 500... Petty won 7 of them! Both won 7 cup championships, but Petty won 200 races, Dale had won 76 when he died at the age of 50. It is easy to argue the merits of both, but I believe that Petty gets the short end partially because of the tragedy that befell Earnhardt.

Against popular high opinion on Senna, what he did, slamming in the opponent car full speed should have seen him disqualified for that year and at least the following one, if not completely banned from the sport. Just look at 1997, just 8 years later, how properly Schumacher was treated. Bump, there goes your season to DQ. What Schumacher did was nearly the very bit same like what Senna did, with the big difference in speed, which makes Senna's offense much darker. Mind you, there were some fatal accident as a result of similar, unintentional crashes on that first Suzuka corner. Now to Vettel, he perhaps should get at most DQ from that race, but taking in view the low speed, the punishment seemed about right. You can not use your car as a weapon against your opponent, although indeed, no harm was done and, there was no intention to put the opponent out of the race. And, Vettel kind of had a "legal" reason to be upset, as Hamilton was not accelerating there where it was natural to do so, making Vettel bump ini him and destrozing his wing. Perez nearly crashed in them, too. So, it is indeed incomparable with the Senna and Schumacher cases. But for the sake of media making headlines it was exaggerated to some degree.

Perez was nowhere near crashing into them because unlike Vettel he left a sensible gap and was not trying to get a jump on the driver in front.

Nothing was done to Schumacher in 1994 when he crashed Hill out of the race and when did the actual speed determine the level of the punishment, a gentle crash at Suzuka 1989 to decide the title is perfectly alright because it was perfectly safe, I guess we are not talking about sporting ethics as such?

Perez had to brake hard, and breaking hard means something wrong and unexpected is happening in the SC phase. If you want to bring out Prost/Senna crash from 1989, let's not forget that, contrary to the a fore mentioned crashes, Prost was ahead of Senna who tried his questionable plunge. Also, 1994 was a Hill mistake, although Schumacher very purposely used it for his benefit. Hill was, like Senna, way back and had been equally impatient.

Things moved on and thank goodness they did. Hopefully neither Senna or Prost would be able to cheat their way to a WDC in 2017.

....or Schumacher.

Regarding Vettel we seem to missing the fact that it was under SC conditions as in the drivers were not supposed to be racing.

Harking back to the past is pointless, I wonder how Piquet's karate kick would be dealt with nowadays?

Times move on and such things change and become more regulated in regards to safety, as in the awful crash protection hoops, in football tackles that were the norm in the past would now get you a straight red card.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

Think it is ridiculous all you want, poker. I didn't say that dying on the track elevates a driver to greatness.... try reading it more closely.

I started watching F1 during the Senna period and he was revered just as much as Jim Clark was and his death was viewed at the same level as Clark's death, yet with Senna his death made him greater than what he really was but that was not the case with a driver like Jim Clark, that's the overall impression I get as I've never seen such a thing said about Clark.

"He was the qualification pole record holder til this year, and his eventual race record speaks for itself."

That was Schumacher, until Hamilton this year.

Thanks for the clarification. I was recalling the Canadian GP this year, where Hamilton was notably given a Senna helmet as he tied the Senna pole record. He has since surpassed both Senna (65 poles) and Schumacher (68 poles). And yes -- to be picky -- the Senna helmet was a 1987 promotional copy (not race worn).

Hamilton breezed by Schumacher's record almost without notice, which makes my point about the Senna "Legend." Hamilton will likely acquire his 80th pole by the end of 2018.

When I think of "best of generation" from Senna's era, I include both Prost, and Niki Lauda, who earned his 3rd WDC in 1984 (overlapping Senna's 1st year). It's debatable whether anyone can be considered "best" among that company.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Last edited by MB-BOB on Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Against popular high opinion on Senna, what he did, slamming in the opponent car full speed should have seen him disqualified for that year and at least the following one, if not completely banned from the sport. Just look at 1997, just 8 years later, how properly Schumacher was treated. Bump, there goes your season to DQ. What Schumacher did was nearly the very bit same like what Senna did, with the big difference in speed, which makes Senna's offense much darker. Mind you, there were some fatal accident as a result of similar, unintentional crashes on that first Suzuka corner. Now to Vettel, he perhaps should get at most DQ from that race, but taking in view the low speed, the punishment seemed about right. You can not use your car as a weapon against your opponent, although indeed, no harm was done and, there was no intention to put the opponent out of the race. And, Vettel kind of had a "legal" reason to be upset, as Hamilton was not accelerating there where it was natural to do so, making Vettel bump ini him and destrozing his wing. Perez nearly crashed in them, too. So, it is indeed incomparable with the Senna and Schumacher cases. But for the sake of media making headlines it was exaggerated to some degree.

Perez was nowhere near crashing into them because unlike Vettel he left a sensible gap and was not trying to get a jump on the driver in front.

Nothing was done to Schumacher in 1994 when he crashed Hill out of the race and when did the actual speed determine the level of the punishment, a gentle crash at Suzuka 1989 to decide the title is perfectly alright because it was perfectly safe, I guess we are not talking about sporting ethics as such?

Schumacher 1994 is nowhere near as clear-cut intentional as you prefer to believe, so the self-admitted intentional Senna action on Prost is not comparable. I'd suggest the difference in speed is proportional to the physical risk to the drivers, but then you knew that didn't you.

So it's only a crime if you admit to it, Schumacher never admitted to any of his actions whether it be Australia 1994, Jerez 1997 or Monaco 2006, at least Senna portrayed a level of honesty.

In respect to the danger we are talking about different times compared to today with different standards, things that happened in the past wouldn't pass muster today.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

It's possible, but I don't recall many defending Senna for his actions in 1990. But that single act doesn't take away from his obvious skill at the wheel: most adults are able to separate the two.

I don't and can't see the two incidents (1989 and 2017) as remotely related and I think attempts to draw parallels are tenuous at best. Attempting to eliminate your competitor from the WDC is cheating: a red mist moment is stupidity. The two are worlds apart. Both Senna and Prost have shown they were not averse to cheating to get their way, yet both are still classed among the best drivers ever to have sat in a Formula One car. I don't see how the title and opening premise of this thread are true in any way.

And, while I agree that death can elevate a driver's status, I also know that Senna was already revered as a special talent long before he died. In that respect, I don't think his death had that much of an impact upon his reputation. Look at Prost - who doesn't hold him in high regard, and he's still alive and kicking?

Against popular high opinion on Senna, what he did, slamming in the opponent car full speed should have seen him disqualified for that year and at least the following one, if not completely banned from the sport. Just look at 1997, just 8 years later, how properly Schumacher was treated. Bump, there goes your season to DQ. What Schumacher did was nearly the very bit same like what Senna did, with the big difference in speed, which makes Senna's offense much darker. Mind you, there were some fatal accident as a result of similar, unintentional crashes on that first Suzuka corner. Now to Vettel, he perhaps should get at most DQ from that race, but taking in view the low speed, the punishment seemed about right. You can not use your car as a weapon against your opponent, although indeed, no harm was done and, there was no intention to put the opponent out of the race. And, Vettel kind of had a "legal" reason to be upset, as Hamilton was not accelerating there where it was natural to do so, making Vettel bump ini him and destrozing his wing. Perez nearly crashed in them, too. So, it is indeed incomparable with the Senna and Schumacher cases. But for the sake of media making headlines it was exaggerated to some degree.

Perez was nowhere near crashing into them because unlike Vettel he left a sensible gap and was not trying to get a jump on the driver in front.

Nothing was done to Schumacher in 1994 when he crashed Hill out of the race and when did the actual speed determine the level of the punishment, a gentle crash at Suzuka 1989 to decide the title is perfectly alright because it was perfectly safe, I guess we are not talking about sporting ethics as such?

Perez had to brake hard, and breaking hard means something wrong and unexpected is happening in the SC phase. If you want to bring out Prost/Senna crash from 1989, let's not forget that, contrary to the a fore mentioned crashes, Prost was ahead of Senna who tried his questionable plunge. Also, 1994 was a Hill mistake, although Schumacher very purposely used it for his benefit. Hill was, like Senna, way back and had been equally impatient.

Perez was not even close to crashing so nothing drastic actually happened apart from Vettel trying to jump the restart.

Regarding title contenders crashing into one another, it's no coincidence when it happens one driver has to pass the other driver for the title and the driver in front is not going to let that happen and a crash is good enough whether that happens in F1, 1989, 1990, 1994 and 1997 or in lesser formulas like FR3.5 with Frijns/Bianchi and Wickens/Vergne, or even bike racing in the 250cc world title decider between Capriossi and Harada, none of these were mere accidents.

Things moved on and thank goodness they did. Hopefully neither Senna or Prost would be able to cheat their way to a WDC in 2017.

....or Schumacher.

Regarding Vettel we seem to missing the fact that it was under SC conditions as in the drivers were not supposed to be racing.

Harking back to the past is pointless, I wonder how Piquet's karate kick would be dealt with nowadays?

Times move on and such things change and become more regulated in regards to safety, as in the awful crash protection hoops, in football tackles that were the norm in the past would now get you a straight red card.

Fireball Roberts had an ugly crash, he was burned so severely it took him a month to die. But from this horrible tragedy the entire racing industry took fire safety seriously and such things as fuel cells became the norm. The point is that racing is a continually evolving organism, and what may be considered acceptable just six months ago may be completely forbidden today. And this applies to all disciplines, not just the technical and mechanical side. One example is the virtual safety car, put in place as a response to Bianchi's death.

We learned from what went down at Suzuka, we have also learned from some of Schumacher's antics. And of course, this world has steadily moved closer and closer to being oppressively politically correct.

So while Piquet's kick meant little when it went down, today mothers would cover their children's eyes, cows would stop giving milk and the Times would be flooded with letters of self-righteous indignation. But that is the measure of a society I can not control, just observe and wonder where the true courage went.

I have been watching racing for many years. When Senna was racing I considered him very talented and skilled but a bully and douche. After his death I learned about his generous heart and many charities. My opinion of him changed, to the extent I still consider him a douche and bully on track, but a warm and caring person away from racing.

And in the case of any death, revisionism slowly creeps in and the truth is eroded away. The public perception of Lauda, Hunt, and Senna have been altered as a result of movies that featured them.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

I don't think it's at all ridiculous. Just like I grew up in Harlem New York and lived the evolution of Hip-Hop, and while great in his own regard, there is no way in hell Biggie Smalls was the greatest rapper of all time, and even less, his once good friend turned enemy 2Pac. Biggie was considerably better in all but one facet and that was running his mouth rather ignorantly because no one did that better than 2Pac.

However, millions of people bought into the hype their personal battle created which was all-out war that ended in the murder of one of them and the other met his demise because he couldn't bring himself to stop acting like an ignorant "Thug" he was aspiring to be. From a ballet aficionado to a comedic rap group's puppy dog groupie, to hawrdcwore Nigga! after a role he landed without intending to which IS what he molded his persona after. And to be be clear, there isn't a single greatest rapper of all time, but there is a handfull of guys who are that almost equally, with the pendulum leaning towards 2 more than any others. Eminem and Busta. However, saying that around a group of people who bought into the hype of the media, spawned by their premature deaths, and you might as well be speaking politics because in their minds what they've been conditioned to believe just is and to entertain anything different is lunacy, even though the material is there to be gone over.

The same is true of Senna and when it comes to Jochen Rindt, even more so. I'll say he's absolutely most overrated championship winning driver of all time and only because he was crowned WDC posthumously. THAT is sadly his real claim to fame. He was at best decent in decent cars and he died 4 with 4 races to go driving a Dominant Lotus-Ford that made him look better than he was, but the 1970 season was so erratic in terms of drivers actually finishing races that any driver who made it to the finish line towards the front consistently had a shot of winning. luckily for Rindt his Lotus proved more reliable than most other front runners.

Now Jim Clark is completely different animal. And by animal I do mean ANIMAL. So good was he that drivers would be perplexed at how he took corners so fast that he'd literally explain to them exactly how he was able to do so and would then jump in his car and have them follow him around the track at moderate speeds so they could see and learn his line before going all out for blistering laps and they STILL couldn't match his time.

The only other sports figure I know to have done this was Dion Sanders. As a cornerback (his first position - the greatest ever there) he'd tell wide receivers how to beat him and when they'd finally get tired of him destroying them and would finally listen, they'd burn him, thinking they had him beat, only to have him make the adjustment and run around them to either break the play up or make an interception. When converted to a wide receiver He'd tell cornerbacks how they should cover him and would then tell them the route he was running and STILL there was nothing they could do to stop him.

In F1 the only other driver that was that much better than his contemporaries was Michael. Heck, they even had complete telemetry and still couldn't match him. Senna was close to this but a good deal of his amazing laps where he passed several people were only possible because drivers didn't want to end their races prematurely. Excluding wet races of course because Senna was almost always untouchable in wet conditions.

Upon his death, Senna was elevated to legendary status effective immediately, and anyone who disagreed with that either hated the guy or was talking nonsense.

1) It wouldn't be "tolerated" today- but things change so there is no need to compare. Safety has improved but it's a positive comparison so we're all happy with that. We live in the present and can affect the future, so leave the past.

2) Most articles these days will acknowledge Senna's ruthlessness on-track as part of his make up, and cite the Suzuka incident as the obvious example, so it's not like this is ignored or denied unless it's the writings of a blinkered fanboy.

Fireball Roberts had an ugly crash, he was burned so severely it took him a month to die. But from this horrible tragedy the entire racing industry took fire safety seriously and such things as fuel cells became the norm. The point is that racing is a continually evolving organism, and what may be considered acceptable just six months ago may be completely forbidden today. And this applies to all disciplines, not just the technical and mechanical side. One example is the virtual safety car, put in place as a response to Bianchi's death.

We learned from what went down at Suzuka, we have also learned from some of Schumacher's antics. And of course, this world has steadily moved closer and closer to being oppressively politically correct.

So while Piquet's kick meant little when it went down, today mothers would cover their children's eyes, cows would stop giving milk and the Times would be flooded with letters of self-righteous indignation. But that is the measure of a society I can not control, just observe and wonder where the true courage went.

I have been watching racing for many years. When Senna was racing I considered him very talented and skilled but a bully and douche. After his death I learned about his generous heart and many charities. My opinion of him changed, to the extent I still consider him a douche and bully on track, but a warm and caring person away from racing.

And in the case of any death, revisionism slowly creeps in and the truth is eroded away. The public perception of Lauda, Hunt, and Senna have been altered as a result of movies that featured them.

Regarding your last paragraph are we not just referring to casual fans, surely people that post on here are not casual fans, do people's opinions that post on here change about drivers if they get killed, really?

Fireball Roberts had an ugly crash, he was burned so severely it took him a month to die. But from this horrible tragedy the entire racing industry took fire safety seriously and such things as fuel cells became the norm. The point is that racing is a continually evolving organism, and what may be considered acceptable just six months ago may be completely forbidden today. And this applies to all disciplines, not just the technical and mechanical side. One example is the virtual safety car, put in place as a response to Bianchi's death.

We learned from what went down at Suzuka, we have also learned from some of Schumacher's antics. And of course, this world has steadily moved closer and closer to being oppressively politically correct.

So while Piquet's kick meant little when it went down, today mothers would cover their children's eyes, cows would stop giving milk and the Times would be flooded with letters of self-righteous indignation. But that is the measure of a society I can not control, just observe and wonder where the true courage went.

I have been watching racing for many years. When Senna was racing I considered him very talented and skilled but a bully and douche. After his death I learned about his generous heart and many charities. My opinion of him changed, to the extent I still consider him a douche and bully on track, but a warm and caring person away from racing.

And in the case of any death, revisionism slowly creeps in and the truth is eroded away. The public perception of Lauda, Hunt, and Senna have been altered as a result of movies that featured them.

Regarding your last paragraph are we not just referring to casual fans, surely people that post on here are not casual fans, do people's opinions that post on here change about drivers if they get killed, really?

So now we narrow the definition of "public perception" to those who post at PF1? How convenient.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

I don't think it's at all ridiculous. Just like I grew up in Harlem New York and lived the evolution of Hip-Hop, and while great in his own regard, there is no way in hell Biggie Smalls was the greatest rapper of all time, and even less, his once good friend turned enemy 2Pac. Biggie was considerably better in all but one facet and that was running his mouth rather ignorantly because no one did that better than 2Pac.

However, millions of people bought into the hype their personal battle created which was all-out war that ended in the murder of one of them and the other met his demise because he couldn't bring himself to stop acting like an ignorant "Thug" he was aspiring to be. From a ballet aficionado to a comedic rap group's puppy dog groupie, to hawrdcwore Nigga! after a role he landed without intending to which IS what he molded his persona after. And to be be clear, there isn't a single greatest rapper of all time, but there is a handfull of guys who are that almost equally, with the pendulum leaning towards 2 more than any others. Eminem and Busta. However, saying that around a group of people who bought into the hype of the media, spawned by their premature deaths, and you might as well be speaking politics because in their minds what they've been conditioned to believe just is and to entertain anything different is lunacy, even though the material is there to be gone over.

The same is true of Senna and when it comes to Jochen Rindt, even more so. I'll say he's absolutely most overrated championship winning driver of all time and only because he was crowned WDC posthumously. THAT is sadly his real claim to fame. He was at best decent in decent cars and he died 4 with 4 races to go driving a Dominant Lotus-Ford that made him look better than he was, but the 1970 season was so erratic in terms of drivers actually finishing races that any driver who made it to the finish line towards the front consistently had a shot of winning. luckily for Rindt his Lotus proved more reliable than most other front runners.

Now Jim Clark is completely different animal. And by animal I do mean ANIMAL. So good was he that drivers would be perplexed at how he took corners so fast that he'd literally explain to them exactly how he was able to do so and would then jump in his car and have them follow him around the track at moderate speeds so they could see and learn his line before going all out for blistering laps and they STILL couldn't match his time.

The only other sports figure I know to have done this was Dion Sanders. As a cornerback (his first position - the greatest ever there) he'd tell wide receivers how to beat him and when they'd finally get tired of him destroying them and would finally listen, they'd burn him, thinking they had him beat, only to have him make the adjustment and run around them to either break the play up or make an interception. When converted to a wide receiver He'd tell cornerbacks how they should cover him and would then tell them the route he was running and STILL there was nothing they could do to stop him.

In F1 the only other driver that was that much better than his contemporaries was Michael. Heck, they even had complete telemetry and still couldn't match him. Senna was close to this but a good deal of his amazing laps where he passed several people were only possible because drivers didn't want to end their races prematurely. Excluding wet races of course because Senna was almost always untouchable in wet conditions.

Upon his death, Senna was elevated to legendary status effective immediately, and anyone who disagreed with that either hated the guy or was talking nonsense.

Joachin Rindt was way before my time and I appreciate that you know far more about him, however he is only remembered as being the posthumous champion, I never see him being labelled as one of the greats, his reputation being exaggerated by his death.

Schumacher was the best for a decade, but this was seen as a weakened F1 with the retirement of Prost and the death of Senna, Schumacher was not seen as being better than Senna at the time they raced together, but now for some seemingly Schumacher is an all time great and Senna is a great exaggerated by his death?

This is a period of F1 that I lived through and I think these views are basically by people who didn't rate Senna that highly in the first place and now in a kind of reverse psychology use his death as an exaggeration of his ability of a driver like I say that they neither liked or rated that highly in the first place.

I lived through it and like Jim Clark before him this was seen as a death of a great, the death of a F1 flag bearer, a death which brought Murray Walker to tears and he couldn't talk and James Hunt basically had to take the microphone off him. Now we are told that his death and a film have over time just exaggerated his standing in the sport, this like I say by people who never rated him in the first place or simply didn't like him.

I don't know where you get Senna being treated like an angelic hero from. He's almost universally slated for his actions in 1990. I think this is a bit revisionist.

Senna had his flaws, but they don't take away from the fact that he was the outstanding driver of his generation. Acknowledging that doesn't mean one excuses his faults.

Zoue,

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

I don't think it's at all ridiculous. Just like I grew up in Harlem New York and lived the evolution of Hip-Hop, and while great in his own regard, there is no way in hell Biggie Smalls was the greatest rapper of all time, and even less, his once good friend turned enemy 2Pac. Biggie was considerably better in all but one facet and that was running his mouth rather ignorantly because no one did that better than 2Pac.

However, millions of people bought into the hype their personal battle created which was all-out war that ended in the murder of one of them and the other met his demise because he couldn't bring himself to stop acting like an ignorant "Thug" he was aspiring to be. From a ballet aficionado to a comedic rap group's puppy dog groupie, to hawrdcwore Nigga! after a role he landed without intending to which IS what he molded his persona after. And to be be clear, there isn't a single greatest rapper of all time, but there is a handfull of guys who are that almost equally, with the pendulum leaning towards 2 more than any others. Eminem and Busta. However, saying that around a group of people who bought into the hype of the media, spawned by their premature deaths, and you might as well be speaking politics because in their minds what they've been conditioned to believe just is and to entertain anything different is lunacy, even though the material is there to be gone over.

The same is true of Senna and when it comes to Jochen Rindt, even more so. I'll say he's absolutely most overrated championship winning driver of all time and only because he was crowned WDC posthumously. THAT is sadly his real claim to fame. He was at best decent in decent cars and he died 4 with 4 races to go driving a Dominant Lotus-Ford that made him look better than he was, but the 1970 season was so erratic in terms of drivers actually finishing races that any driver who made it to the finish line towards the front consistently had a shot of winning. luckily for Rindt his Lotus proved more reliable than most other front runners.

Now Jim Clark is completely different animal. And by animal I do mean ANIMAL. So good was he that drivers would be perplexed at how he took corners so fast that he'd literally explain to them exactly how he was able to do so and would then jump in his car and have them follow him around the track at moderate speeds so they could see and learn his line before going all out for blistering laps and they STILL couldn't match his time.

The only other sports figure I know to have done this was Dion Sanders. As a cornerback (his first position - the greatest ever there) he'd tell wide receivers how to beat him and when they'd finally get tired of him destroying them and would finally listen, they'd burn him, thinking they had him beat, only to have him make the adjustment and run around them to either break the play up or make an interception. When converted to a wide receiver He'd tell cornerbacks how they should cover him and would then tell them the route he was running and STILL there was nothing they could do to stop him.

In F1 the only other driver that was that much better than his contemporaries was Michael. Heck, they even had complete telemetry and still couldn't match him. Senna was close to this but a good deal of his amazing laps where he passed several people were only possible because drivers didn't want to end their races prematurely. Excluding wet races of course because Senna was almost always untouchable in wet conditions.

Upon his death, Senna was elevated to legendary status effective immediately, and anyone who disagreed with that either hated the guy or was talking nonsense.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

Fireball Roberts had an ugly crash, he was burned so severely it took him a month to die. But from this horrible tragedy the entire racing industry took fire safety seriously and such things as fuel cells became the norm. The point is that racing is a continually evolving organism, and what may be considered acceptable just six months ago may be completely forbidden today. And this applies to all disciplines, not just the technical and mechanical side. One example is the virtual safety car, put in place as a response to Bianchi's death.

We learned from what went down at Suzuka, we have also learned from some of Schumacher's antics. And of course, this world has steadily moved closer and closer to being oppressively politically correct.

So while Piquet's kick meant little when it went down, today mothers would cover their children's eyes, cows would stop giving milk and the Times would be flooded with letters of self-righteous indignation. But that is the measure of a society I can not control, just observe and wonder where the true courage went.

I have been watching racing for many years. When Senna was racing I considered him very talented and skilled but a bully and douche. After his death I learned about his generous heart and many charities. My opinion of him changed, to the extent I still consider him a douche and bully on track, but a warm and caring person away from racing.

And in the case of any death, revisionism slowly creeps in and the truth is eroded away. The public perception of Lauda, Hunt, and Senna have been altered as a result of movies that featured them.

Regarding your last paragraph are we not just referring to casual fans, surely people that post on here are not casual fans, do people's opinions that post on here change about drivers if they get killed, really?

So now we narrow the definition of "public perception" to those who post at PF1? How convenient.

What do casual fans know about Senna?

Senna's standing in the sport is exaggerated by casual fans who happened to watch a film about him?

This seems to be the argument being made against Senna as far as I can see plus he died and that made him extra special.

All I really see is posts by the likes of you and some others that never rated Senna that highly in the first place looking to play down his standing in the sport.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

I don't think it's at all ridiculous. Just like I grew up in Harlem New York and lived the evolution of Hip-Hop, and while great in his own regard, there is no way in hell Biggie Smalls was the greatest rapper of all time, and even less, his once good friend turned enemy 2Pac. Biggie was considerably better in all but one facet and that was running his mouth rather ignorantly because no one did that better than 2Pac.

However, millions of people bought into the hype their personal battle created which was all-out war that ended in the murder of one of them and the other met his demise because he couldn't bring himself to stop acting like an ignorant "Thug" he was aspiring to be. From a ballet aficionado to a comedic rap group's puppy dog groupie, to hawrdcwore Nigga! after a role he landed without intending to which IS what he molded his persona after. And to be be clear, there isn't a single greatest rapper of all time, but there is a handfull of guys who are that almost equally, with the pendulum leaning towards 2 more than any others. Eminem and Busta. However, saying that around a group of people who bought into the hype of the media, spawned by their premature deaths, and you might as well be speaking politics because in their minds what they've been conditioned to believe just is and to entertain anything different is lunacy, even though the material is there to be gone over.

The same is true of Senna and when it comes to Jochen Rindt, even more so. I'll say he's absolutely most overrated championship winning driver of all time and only because he was crowned WDC posthumously. THAT is sadly his real claim to fame. He was at best decent in decent cars and he died 4 with 4 races to go driving a Dominant Lotus-Ford that made him look better than he was, but the 1970 season was so erratic in terms of drivers actually finishing races that any driver who made it to the finish line towards the front consistently had a shot of winning. luckily for Rindt his Lotus proved more reliable than most other front runners.

Now Jim Clark is completely different animal. And by animal I do mean ANIMAL. So good was he that drivers would be perplexed at how he took corners so fast that he'd literally explain to them exactly how he was able to do so and would then jump in his car and have them follow him around the track at moderate speeds so they could see and learn his line before going all out for blistering laps and they STILL couldn't match his time.

The only other sports figure I know to have done this was Dion Sanders. As a cornerback (his first position - the greatest ever there) he'd tell wide receivers how to beat him and when they'd finally get tired of him destroying them and would finally listen, they'd burn him, thinking they had him beat, only to have him make the adjustment and run around them to either break the play up or make an interception. When converted to a wide receiver He'd tell cornerbacks how they should cover him and would then tell them the route he was running and STILL there was nothing they could do to stop him.

In F1 the only other driver that was that much better than his contemporaries was Michael. Heck, they even had complete telemetry and still couldn't match him. Senna was close to this but a good deal of his amazing laps where he passed several people were only possible because drivers didn't want to end their races prematurely. Excluding wet races of course because Senna was almost always untouchable in wet conditions.

Upon his death, Senna was elevated to legendary status effective immediately, and anyone who disagreed with that either hated the guy or was talking nonsense.

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

We don't often disagree, but this time we do. I think many in here have Senna on a very high pedestal and frequently over look the flaws. Actually, the OP makes some very valid points... yes times and F1 are different, but it is rather remarkable when one reviews the outcomes of both described incidents.

Lastly, I don't think of Senna as the outstanding driver of his generation... perhaps the quickest, but to me the best of that generation was Prost. Also, whether we like to admit it or not... dying on the track does tend to "elevate" already great driver's status... ie, Senna and Earnhardt Sr.

You will disagree but I think less so in recent years. 10 or 20 years ago it was hard to find a "greatest driver" pole that didn't have Senna at the top. Now I think people generally take a more realistic view. Personally I rate him a shade better than Prost but agree that you could rate their careers pretty evenly. Both would make my top 5 GOAT and neither would be at the top of my list.

Also I think it ridiculous the claims that Senna's career was elevated because of his death, would the same be said of Jim Clark I wonder and how often do you hear of Joachim Rindt being listed among the greats because he died on the track the year he won the title?

I don't think it's at all ridiculous. Just like I grew up in Harlem New York and lived the evolution of Hip-Hop, and while great in his own regard, there is no way in hell Biggie Smalls was the greatest rapper of all time, and even less, his once good friend turned enemy 2Pac. Biggie was considerably better in all but one facet and that was running his mouth rather ignorantly because no one did that better than 2Pac.

However, millions of people bought into the hype their personal battle created which was all-out war that ended in the murder of one of them and the other met his demise because he couldn't bring himself to stop acting like an ignorant "Thug" he was aspiring to be. From a ballet aficionado to a comedic rap group's puppy dog groupie, to hawrdcwore Nigga! after a role he landed without intending to which IS what he molded his persona after. And to be be clear, there isn't a single greatest rapper of all time, but there is a handfull of guys who are that almost equally, with the pendulum leaning towards 2 more than any others. Eminem and Busta. However, saying that around a group of people who bought into the hype of the media, spawned by their premature deaths, and you might as well be speaking politics because in their minds what they've been conditioned to believe just is and to entertain anything different is lunacy, even though the material is there to be gone over.

The same is true of Senna and when it comes to Jochen Rindt, even more so. I'll say he's absolutely most overrated championship winning driver of all time and only because he was crowned WDC posthumously. THAT is sadly his real claim to fame. He was at best decent in decent cars and he died 4 with 4 races to go driving a Dominant Lotus-Ford that made him look better than he was, but the 1970 season was so erratic in terms of drivers actually finishing races that any driver who made it to the finish line towards the front consistently had a shot of winning. luckily for Rindt his Lotus proved more reliable than most other front runners.

Now Jim Clark is completely different animal. And by animal I do mean ANIMAL. So good was he that drivers would be perplexed at how he took corners so fast that he'd literally explain to them exactly how he was able to do so and would then jump in his car and have them follow him around the track at moderate speeds so they could see and learn his line before going all out for blistering laps and they STILL couldn't match his time.

The only other sports figure I know to have done this was Dion Sanders. As a cornerback (his first position - the greatest ever there) he'd tell wide receivers how to beat him and when they'd finally get tired of him destroying them and would finally listen, they'd burn him, thinking they had him beat, only to have him make the adjustment and run around them to either break the play up or make an interception. When converted to a wide receiver He'd tell cornerbacks how they should cover him and would then tell them the route he was running and STILL there was nothing they could do to stop him.

In F1 the only other driver that was that much better than his contemporaries was Michael. Heck, they even had complete telemetry and still couldn't match him. Senna was close to this but a good deal of his amazing laps where he passed several people were only possible because drivers didn't want to end their races prematurely. Excluding wet races of course because Senna was almost always untouchable in wet conditions.

Upon his death, Senna was elevated to legendary status effective immediately, and anyone who disagreed with that either hated the guy or was talking nonsense.

Joachin Rindt was way before my time and I appreciate that you know far more about him, however he is only remembered as being the posthumous champion, I never see him being labelled as one of the greats, his reputation being exaggerated by his death.

Schumacher was the best for a decade, but this was seen as a weakened F1 with the retirement of Prost and the death of Senna, Schumacher was not seen as being better than Senna at the time they raced together, but now for some seemingly Schumacher is an all time great and Senna is a great exaggerated by his death?

This is a period of F1 that I lived through and I think these views are basically by people who didn't rate Senna that highly in the first place and now in a kind of reverse psychology use his death as an exaggeration of his ability of a driver like I say that they neither liked or rated that highly in the first place.

I lived through it and like Jim Clark before him this was seen as a death of a great, the death of a F1 flag bearer, a death which brought Murray Walker to tears and he couldn't talk and James Hunt basically had to take the microphone off him. Now we are told that his death and a film have over time just exaggerated his standing in the sport, this like I say by people who never rated him in the first place or simply didn't like him.

Wow, you really wrote a lot of carp in this post Poker, not your usual style.

Schumacher is seemingly an all time great? The weakened F1 is always an argument, for a different discussion maybe. But he "seemingly" is an all time great?

And maybe, just maybe, you are still missing the whole point. No one said that his status elevated BECAUSE of Senna's death. Just that his already high status got to silly levels after his death. And this is exactly what has happened. Senna was amazeballs when he was racing, that's not debated. But years after the Senna craze has calmed down, some people can remember that he also had a dark side, with regards to racing of course. Hell, that interview with Steward is actually there to show you that not everyone thought that what Senna touched was gold, even back then. You somehow twisted this that these claims are from people not liking Senna in the first place... And of course there may be people who never bought into the Senna craze, but you'd have to be blind not to see that the guy was the real deal.

Dying young always added some romanticism. And as bad as it sounds, I don't think some people, especially the younger generations, would know the names of Winkelhock, Pryce or Ratzenberger if it wasn't for their deaths. Of course, arguably some of them never got their chance to shine.

In 1990, Jackie Stewart interviewed Senna about the number of controversial collisions in which Senna had been involved over the previous years, questioning why Senna “had made more contact with other cars and drivers in the last four years than all the champions before him?”

You misquoted Stewart there, his question was BS but he clearly did not know himself. He actually said.

"If you totaled up all of those great champions, the number of times they had made contact with other drivers, that you in the last 36, 48 months have been in contact with more other cars and drivers than they might have done in total"

The key word being might, so he hadn't done the research so I don't know why he thought he could ask such a question. Something proven completely wrong.

Those contacts were;90 Japan - Senna driving into Prost89 Japan - Prost closing the door on Senna89 Portugal - Mansell and Senna collide (Mansell had already been black flagged at that point and was out the race)89 Brazil - Lost his front wing at the start88 Monza - collided with back marker when lapping him87 Spa - collision with Mansell, probably Senna's fault he battled him hard.

6 collisions over 4 years, just over 1 per season.

For context of that collision rate, Hamilton had over 10 collisions during the 2011/12 seasons and Hamilton also had 4 in 2016 alone.

Vettel himself has been involved in more than 8 collisions over 2016/2017

Definition: "used in reference to a fit of extreme anger that temporarily clouds a person's judgement."

That is what happened to Vettel in Baku. His action was set to gain him nothing. It was a pure act of anger.

Senna driving into Prost in 90 was set to gain him the world championship and an action he somewhat planned long before. Senna did not see red mist, it was the complete opposite - a calculated move to remove his rival for perceived injustices he wrongly or rightly felt (Prost doing it to him in 89 and the pole not being moved in 1990). Senna has since said he decided he would go for it no matter what, that is a calculated decision that he consider long before acting.

Last edited by lamo on Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In 1990, Jackie Stewart interviewed Senna about the number of controversial collisions in which Senna had been involved over the previous years, questioning why Senna “had made more contact with other cars and drivers in the last four years than all the champions before him?”

You misquoted Stewart there, his question was BS but he clearly did not know himself. He actually said.

"If you totaled up all of those great champions, the number of times they had made contact with other drivers, that you in the last 36, 48 months have been in contact with more other cars and drivers than they might have done in total"

The key word being might, so he hadn't done the research so I don't know why he thought he could ask such a question. Something proven completely wrong.

Those contacts were;90 Japan - Senna driving into Prost89 Japan - Prost closing the door on Senna89 Portugal - Mansell and Senna collide (Mansell had already been black flagged at that point and was out the race)89 Brazil - Lost his front wing at the start88 Monza - collided with back marker when lapping him87 Spa - collision with Mansell, probably Senna's fault he battled him hard.

6 collisions over 4 years, just over 1 per season.

For context of that collision rate, Hamilton had over 10 collisions during the 2011/12 seasons andHamilton also had 4 in 2016 alone.

Vettel himself has been involved in more than 8 collisions over 2016/2017

I used Stewart to show that not everyone was buying into the "walking on water" craze of the time, not as an example of prime journalism. But you actually are re-enforcing my point that Senna was held in a higher regard since this interview was incorrect, so thank you

Definition: "used in reference to a fit of extreme anger that temporarily clouds a person's judgement."

That is what happened to Vettel in Baku. His action was set to gain him nothing. It was a pure act of anger.

Senna driving into Prost in 89 was set to gain him the world championship and an action he somewhat planned long before. Senna did not see red mist, it was the complete opposite - a calculated move to remove his rival for perceived injustices he wrongly or rightly felt (Prost doing it to him in 88 and the pole not being moved in 1989). Senna has since said he decided he would go for it no matter what, that is a calculated decision that he consider long before acting.

Definition: "used in reference to a fit of extreme anger that temporarily clouds a person's judgement."

That is what happened to Vettel in Baku. His action was set to gain him nothing. It was a pure act of anger.

Senna driving into Prost in 89 was set to gain him the world championship and an action he somewhat planned long before. Senna did not see red mist, it was the complete opposite - a calculated move to remove his rival for perceived injustices he wrongly or rightly felt (Prost doing it to him in 88 and the pole not being moved in 1989). Senna has since said he decided he would go for it no matter what, that is a calculated decision that he consider long before acting.